Isn't it normal practice to copy films and distribute them to the people who vote in the Academy Awards and similar Hollywood fluffer events? Normally the movies under consideration for these awards haven't had formal DVD releases, so the copies are one-off DVDs specifically for reviewers.
Been asleep for a while, have we? The MPAA mandated that Academy screeners be banned, and anyone who distributes screeners shall be immediately forfeit of Academy consideration.
most of those havent bee around since 20's vintage cars
My first car was a '73 International Harvester Scout, and it had a choke. Not that I ever used it, but it was there on the dash, right next to the cigarette lighter.
If you were someone who wanted to take down the internet, or build a nice DDOS network, how would you go about doing it? One way would be to try and exploit the latest bug. The other way would be to write up an app that everybody would intetionally install on their machines.
Holy shit - that never even occurred to me, which is surprising, seeing as how I won't even eat free samples of food they give out in grocery stores... 'Hi, I'm a total stranger, put this in your mouth!'
Conversely, with ES5 you get 'Hi, I'm a total stranger in a war-torn area where everyone hates Americans! Install me on your system!'.
I believe all three of these hypothetical humans are people, regardless of whether or not its inside someone else or not.
I never said an organism had to survive WELL autonomously to lose its' parasitic label, just to survive. With the exception of the fetus, which cannot survive without its host, the above mentioned entities are in fact human. Neglected, they may die, but they are in fact living on their own without the assistance of external aid.
Since you want to get all huffy and pedantic, you should know that there is a significant difference between symbiosis (like our relationship to the trees) and parasites (like tapeworms and fetuses). Trying to equate the two, as you did in your postscript, makes me question the validity of any of your other convictions. Kissy kissy.
A parasite is a species that lives off another species. You can have exploitive and symbiotic parasitism, but it always involves a host and parasite species.
A human embryo and a human mother are the same species. Therefore, by definition, the human embryo is NOT a parasite.
You've obviously never met my sister-in-law. Anyway, back to my point:
Dictionary.com defines parasite as: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
It says nothing about differing species, only different organisms. By the above definition, a fetus is a perfect example.
Ultimately, the parasite argument is inconsequential. The issue at hand is still whether or not a fetus counts as a human, and the answer to that isn't scientific, it's theological - which makes it good fodder for debate, but not as a basis for advancing or hindering scientific research. Just like the RIAA's supposed 'potential income', you can't quantify 'potential humanity'.
The unborn homo sapiens, is by definition, not a parasite.
Au contraire, the unborn homo sapiens is indeed a parasite - it cannot exist without a host, it derives nutrients from the host to the detriment of that host. It is in fact the epitome of a parasite.
Birth is not 'some arbitrarily defined stage of growth', it is the moment of transformation from parasite to human. That's like saying death is an arbitrary stage of growth - when in fact, it is the end of the cycle which began at birth. Does your methodology state that a decomposing body is alive? It should, since the pre-birth status of a human is just the alternate bookend of that life cycle.
Please explain to me the ethical difference in the two positions.
Ok, I'll bite.
It comes down to where you think human life begins - in my opinion (and no doubt, not yours), human life begins at the point where the fetus can survive on its own. Until then, it's a parasite, and the host should be able to deal with it as the host sees fit.
Wait, you say, does that mean that someone who is dependant upon machines to live is somehow less human than someone who can survive autonomously?
Yes. That's what I'm saying. Humans dependant upon machines to live are cyborgs.
My karma's fat, so bring on the flames. Don't forget to warm up your bibles.
I browse at -1, because I often moderate. Just like voting, if you don't mod, you shouldn't bitch about the system. I do both, vote and moderate, so I won't be a hypocrite when I criticize the respective systems.
Thank you. That's all I said, and was all I meant. Amazing how many people are eager to misread black and white text in order to further their own little agendas.
Heed your own advice, chuckles - I don't see any mention at the top of this thread leading to my original response that said ANYTHING about being limited to Florida - the statement was, 'Bush got more votes', which is wrong. All I did was clarify that one inaccurate statement with the facts, and this entire thread erupted from halfwits like yourself who read more into what was written than, well, what was written. How my political leanings were (incorrectly) derived from that simple statement of fact just shows your own bias and willingness to attack anything that differs from your own precious idiology.
If you clowns weren't so hyper-sensitive, for whatever reasons of your own, you'd have seen that. Read what it says, not what you think it means. Some of us actually have the ability to say exactly what we think.
I remember a time when Slashdot was home of intelligent discourse. I miss those days.
I voted for who I thought would make the best president. Not my fault my vote upset some kind of delicate balance within our Kodos and Kang 2-party system. Piss off, AC.
FYI, I didn't vote for Bush OR Gore, I was one of the few Naders. I just clarified the statement 'Bush got more votes' - which he didn't. He got more states. You guys need to cut down on the Dew.
Slashdot Mirror
CmdrTaco, no longer content to repost content from his own website, has taken to lifting stories and headlines from Metafilter.
Time for a vacation, Malda. Really.
-72
Is 'pathetisad' a word?
-72
I figure if I work hard enough, I will get paid to do what I love.
Keep dreaming - I've been beating off for decades and haven't made dime one from it.
-72
Isn't it normal practice to copy films and distribute them to the people who vote in the Academy Awards and similar Hollywood fluffer events? Normally the movies under consideration for these awards haven't had formal DVD releases, so the copies are one-off DVDs specifically for reviewers.
Been asleep for a while, have we? The MPAA mandated that Academy screeners be banned, and anyone who distributes screeners shall be immediately forfeit of Academy consideration.
-72
hey, I never said I called it without inspiration.
-72
Told ya.
-72
Not arguing any of your points - just wanted to comment on your sig - bravo. Never can see enough Harvard Lampoon references!
-72
My p3-700 just keeps lookin' better and better!
-72
most of those havent bee around since 20's vintage cars
My first car was a '73 International Harvester Scout, and it had a choke. Not that I ever used it, but it was there on the dash, right next to the cigarette lighter.
-72
If you were someone who wanted to take down the internet, or build a nice DDOS network, how would you go about doing it? One way would be to try and exploit the latest bug. The other way would be to write up an app that everybody would intetionally install on their machines.
Holy shit - that never even occurred to me, which is surprising, seeing as how I won't even eat free samples of food they give out in grocery stores... 'Hi, I'm a total stranger, put this in your mouth!'
Conversely, with ES5 you get 'Hi, I'm a total stranger in a war-torn area where everyone hates Americans! Install me on your system!'.
Fiendishly clever!
-72
And how would the hosts' species survive without having any babies?
It wouldn't. Good thing we weren't talking about the survival of the species, just the host, huh?
-72
I believe all three of these hypothetical humans are people, regardless of whether or not its inside someone else or not.
I never said an organism had to survive WELL autonomously to lose its' parasitic label, just to survive. With the exception of the fetus, which cannot survive without its host, the above mentioned entities are in fact human. Neglected, they may die, but they are in fact living on their own without the assistance of external aid.
Since you want to get all huffy and pedantic, you should know that there is a significant difference between symbiosis (like our relationship to the trees) and parasites (like tapeworms and fetuses). Trying to equate the two, as you did in your postscript, makes me question the validity of any of your other convictions. Kissy kissy.
-72
Actually, I was a c-section baby.
Hey, me too! You can't tell by looking at me, but whenever I leave the house, I have to go out the window.
</stephenwright>
-72
A parasite is a species that lives off another species. You can have exploitive and symbiotic parasitism, but it always involves a host and parasite species.
A human embryo and a human mother are the same species. Therefore, by definition, the human embryo is NOT a parasite.
You've obviously never met my sister-in-law. Anyway, back to my point:
Dictionary.com defines parasite as: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
It says nothing about differing species, only different organisms. By the above definition, a fetus is a perfect example.
Ultimately, the parasite argument is inconsequential. The issue at hand is still whether or not a fetus counts as a human, and the answer to that isn't scientific, it's theological - which makes it good fodder for debate, but not as a basis for advancing or hindering scientific research. Just like the RIAA's supposed 'potential income', you can't quantify 'potential humanity'.
-72
Are you dependent upon your automobile?
Nope. I walk to the store all the time. I work 6 blocks from where I live.
What's your excuse?
-72
The unborn homo sapiens, is by definition, not a parasite.
Au contraire, the unborn homo sapiens is indeed a parasite - it cannot exist without a host, it derives nutrients from the host to the detriment of that host. It is in fact the epitome of a parasite.
Birth is not 'some arbitrarily defined stage of growth', it is the moment of transformation from parasite to human. That's like saying death is an arbitrary stage of growth - when in fact, it is the end of the cycle which began at birth. Does your methodology state that a decomposing body is alive? It should, since the pre-birth status of a human is just the alternate bookend of that life cycle.
-72
Please explain to me the ethical difference in the two positions.
Ok, I'll bite.
It comes down to where you think human life begins - in my opinion (and no doubt, not yours), human life begins at the point where the fetus can survive on its own. Until then, it's a parasite, and the host should be able to deal with it as the host sees fit.
Wait, you say, does that mean that someone who is dependant upon machines to live is somehow less human than someone who can survive autonomously?
Yes. That's what I'm saying. Humans dependant upon machines to live are cyborgs.
My karma's fat, so bring on the flames. Don't forget to warm up your bibles.
-72
does double actually mean, 2 in each orifice?
Disturbingly enough, yes it does. The logistics are staggering.
-72
Specifically, Double Vag, Double Anal. Thank god for the education I get from Trey and Matt.
-72
I browse at -1, because I often moderate. Just like voting, if you don't mod, you shouldn't bitch about the system. I do both, vote and moderate, so I won't be a hypocrite when I criticize the respective systems.
-72
Thank you. That's all I said, and was all I meant. Amazing how many people are eager to misread black and white text in order to further their own little agendas.
-72
Heed your own advice, chuckles - I don't see any mention at the top of this thread leading to my original response that said ANYTHING about being limited to Florida - the statement was, 'Bush got more votes', which is wrong. All I did was clarify that one inaccurate statement with the facts, and this entire thread erupted from halfwits like yourself who read more into what was written than, well, what was written. How my political leanings were (incorrectly) derived from that simple statement of fact just shows your own bias and willingness to attack anything that differs from your own precious idiology.
If you clowns weren't so hyper-sensitive, for whatever reasons of your own, you'd have seen that. Read what it says, not what you think it means. Some of us actually have the ability to say exactly what we think.
I remember a time when Slashdot was home of intelligent discourse. I miss those days.
-72
I voted for who I thought would make the best president. Not my fault my vote upset some kind of delicate balance within our Kodos and Kang 2-party system. Piss off, AC.
-72
ooo, big talk from an AC. By your logic, then, "have a nice day" = "have a nice day, you drooling pusbucket".
Have a nice day.
-72
Touchy touchy.
FYI, I didn't vote for Bush OR Gore, I was one of the few Naders. I just clarified the statement 'Bush got more votes' - which he didn't. He got more states. You guys need to cut down on the Dew.
-72